Signage Height Limit

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

I'm 99% sure Vancouver's sign bylaw prohibits signs above 450'. One reason why Shangri-La photoshopped theirs onto their website image. lol.

If this is in fact true, then that is totally and completely ridiculous! "oh no, not a sign...we can't have that"

[officedweller]

I think that is true - I think it was part of the rezoning for the "higher building" - but Westbank made a proposal to the City for a sign that was more like "artwork", but I guess it was a non-starter.

[Metro-One]

that has to be one of the most bizarre by laws among Vancouver's bizarre bylaws.

You allow a taller tower......one to be the pinnacle of your skyline....yet you don't allow them to have signage???? And why 450 foot cut off? Sounds like an arbitrary number to me!

Just plain stupid IMO.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

that has to be one of the most bizarre by laws among Vancouver's bizarre bylaws.

You allow a taller tower......one to be the pinnacle of your skyline....yet you don't allow them to have signage???? And why 450 foot cut off? Sounds like an arbitrary number to me!

Just plain stupid IMO.

It's not that bizarre. When the general policy for higher buildings was adopted the intent of the policy was to ensure that a building couldn't go through the stricter design process to achieve tall buildings status and then simply put a cheap-looking logo on top. In leaving the existing sign bylaw intact, the City avoids a potential fight with the developer/hotel/office tenant about what the sign should look like. As OD pointed out, Westbank tried to get around the bylaw but failed.

The 450 ft cutoff is the previous height limit for the CBD; though it's difficult to envision a 600 ft tower having a logo at the 450 ft limit, but the City probably knew no developer would put a logo on a building that low.

As much as I would like to see lighting on the top of the tallest buildings, I don't really care that signage is restricted.

[Metro-One]

exactly, arbitrary non sense. It is incredibly bizarre to not allow towers to have logos at their peaks in a central business district, especially given that this day and age even 600 feet is not that tall of a tower. If anything goes hand in hand it is signage and the CBD...

I know that if I were to build an office tower above 450 feet tall in Vancouver signage at the top would be a must, and I think most firms would feel the same way.

And it really seems ass backwards to have your tallest building the most dimly lit at night.

A bylaw restricting crown signage below 450 feet would actually make more sense....(although that would still be ridiculous).

[Prometheus]

It is just another unnecessary, stifling, meddlesome government regulation that makes Vancouver a less appealing place to do business.

[dleung]

wonder what Jlousa has to say about the signage restrictions?

[jlousa]

I'm entitled to my personal opinion. I support the restriction of signage to 450ft and under.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I support the restriction of signage to 450ft and under.

Why not 449 feet? Why not 451 feet?

As I recently said in another thread, either out of self-disgust or sheer economic necessity, that kind of small town, hyper-controlling, anti-competitive attitude, which stifles human creativity and economic growth, will eventually get swept away by a newer, bolder, more ambitious generation who are unwilling to stand by and watch the full potential of their city get held back by the ridiculous, arbitrary edicts of a small group of meddlesome bureaucrats who have nothing better to do.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm entitled to my personal opinion. I support the restriction of signage to 450ft and under.

I guessed as much since you seem to have zero disagreement with anything in the city, but why?

[jlousa]

Zero disagreement with the city?? Ask me about the viaducts, the implementation method of the bike lanes, the Rize project in Mt. Pleasant, the petting zoo, the conservatory etc etc. I don't see eye to eye with the city on many things. I do however see their reasoning, I just might not agree with it.
As to why 450ft well that's what was proposed, I'd be even happier with ~400ft. Just don't think we need logos to make us a better city nor will allowing them attract companies that are otherwise not building. I'd prefer nice crowns/spires, subtle lighting/art effects on our tallest over a logo anyday. That's my opinion, surprised it's not more common on this site.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'd be even happier with ~400ft. Just don't think we need logos to make us a better city... I'd prefer nice crowns/spires, subtle lighting/art effects on our tallest over a logo anyday.

That's what would make you happy; that's what you would prefer. But why should you desire to impose your preferences on others? What makes you want to set limits on the choices of others and force them to conform to your vision of happiness? Why should you oppose the freedom of others to build and create according to their own vision? And why would you support policies that lessen the business case for commercial construction and job creation in Vancouver?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Zero disagreement with the city?? Ask me about the viaducts, the implementation method of the bike lanes, the Rize project in Mt. Pleasant, the petting zoo, the conservatory etc etc. I don't see eye to eye with the city on many things. I do however see their reasoning, I just might not agree with it.
As to why 450ft well that's what was proposed, I'd be even happier with ~400ft. Just don't think we need logos to make us a better city nor will allowing them attract companies that are otherwise not building. I'd prefer nice crowns/spires, subtle lighting/art effects on our tallest over a logo anyday. That's my opinion, surprised it's not more common on this site.

I agree with this, but given how the Shangri-La was given none of the above, a logo would be nice so you can at least locate it at night when admiring the skyline

I really wish they at least placed a faint white lighting effect that would have run along the top of the fins.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

That's what would make you happy; that's what you would prefer. But why should you desire to impose your preferences on others? What makes you want to set limits on the choices of others and force them to conform to your vision of happiness? Why should you oppose the freedom of others to build and create according to their own vision? And why, in a competitive globalized economy, would you support policies that lessen the business case for commercial construction and job creation in Vancouver?

Not sure what you're implying, if anything, I was asked for my opinion and I stated my opinion. I haven't imposed it on anyone as I don't recommend policy nor do I vote on staffs recommendations.
If you know of any job creation or construction project that was shelved due to this policy or the view cones for that matter I'd love to hear it as it'd be news to me.
I agree with Metro I feel some modest lighting on the crown would've been a nice touch.

[Pinion]

^You don't need to post more than once. No one gives a damn about the wikipedia page, clearly.

When I said the Shangri-La was too dark at night, a logo was definitely not what I had in mind. More like Empire State style lighting - classic "colour" preferably.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Just don't think we need logos to make us a better city nor will allowing them attract companies that are otherwise not building.

Not needing something doesn't explain why you're opposed to it.

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'd prefer nice crowns/spires, subtle lighting/art effects on our tallest over a logo anyday. That's my opinion, surprised it's not more common on this site.

Wanting other things doesn't explain being opposed to the first thing.

Originally Posted by jlousa

As to why 450ft well that's what was proposed, I'd be even happier with ~400ft.

Why is a logo at 400' better than at 450', and why is 450' better than 600'? I would have guessed light pollution, but the your second argument nixed that.

[Canadian Mind]

Regardless, I'm with Metro and J-Lo. A nice spire or crown, well lit, trumps a corporate logo in my book anyday.

That said, second to those, when a crown or lighting is not a definitive architectural feature, I don't understand the rational for not allowing well lit signage on corporate/hotel structures. It's not like the exclusion of signage above 450 feet has produced miracle architecture. Shangri-La could use some lit signage, even if they are small. Hotel Georgia, while not finished yet, has a lacklustre crown in my opinion. But lighting may change this.

Now, I'm not saying it should be an either-or. Preference should be given to distinctive permanent* architectural features over lit corporate signage. Something in the form of a small density bonus and/or height allowance. Lit corporate signage, or the provisions for it to be installed, should simply be a given on any commercial tower in the city, regardless of height. Only exception to that would be if the very act of having signage would detract from the overall architectural quality & aesthetics of the building.

* not lighting features that could be later turned off forever on a whim.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

If you know of any job creation or construction project that was shelved due to this policy or the view cones for that matter I'd love to hear it as it'd be news to me.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is evidence of things which exist, not of things that never come to be. Businesses don't hold press conferences about the cities they didn't consider or the projects they don't have plans to build. Such projects are not "shelved" becaused they are not even proposed. Businesses draft plans which make economic sense, not ones that don't. The opportunities that a city loses in this way are thus lost silently.

That doesn't mean we can't see that Vancouver underperforms economically--that it fails to attract as much commercial activity as it could--and figure out why. That a developer is barred from collecting millions of dollars from selling naming rights if it builds over 450 feet (in the very unlikely event that it is even allowed to build that high) and that a business is prevented from maximizing the value of its brand if it rents such a building are just two of many obvious city-imposed disadvantages that lessen Vancouver's economic attractiveness.

[twoNeurons]

Why do we need signage up in the air that high? It doesn't ADD to the architecture... and it cheapens the building as it essentially becomes a huge billboard in the sky.

If a building is going to be associated with a brand or a company, they should be built as unique.

Does the Empire State Building have logos? The Willis Tower, the Burj Khalifa, the CN Tower, The original Twin Towers, the Petronas towers?

Do we want this kind of thing?


Not allowing signage up high can serve to INCREASE the architectural quality of a building as it has to stand out based on its own merits. Besides, businesses don't make business decisions on the ability to put a sign atop the building, there are lots of things that are taken into consideration.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I haven't imposed it on anyone as I don't recommend policy nor do I vote on staffs recommendations

I know. You just support such impositions:

Originally Posted by jlousa

I support the restriction of signage to 450ft and under.

Thus, you are as morally accountable as the people who do recommend and vote on such policies.